For example to the best of our knowledge why did the Romans not just burn down the German forest/set massive wild fires.

I'm looking for a sweet German letter to home from officers who had to kill hundreds of people in the Holocaust. This to show the humanity of nazi soldiers (as opposed to the regime) in my lessons. Can anyone help me?

What I mean is, was she amongst the men fighting in battle and killing men herself, or was she staying behind in a more safe space

All the depictions you see of her in movies/tv is her directly attacking the English (and getting shot at Les Tourelles while climbing the walls). Is that accurate?

And if yes, was it considered dishonorable for kings or lords to hire them?

Early in its history, France was kinda like the HRE, in that they were both very decentralized.

Need 3 primary sources. Specifically in regards to military (comparing ancient Roman strategies to modern armies) and culture clash (how did Roman empire face the many cultures around it, how was it influenced by some, to what extent did it ignore orhers)

Any good primary sources would be much apreciated

I apologize if this question does not belong here.

Lately I've read some works of Noam Chomsky, and I've found his use of facts very convincing. I haven't read the book Anti-Chomsky Reader, but I've read reviews of it and think I understand its basic gist. It seems to me that the criticism aimed to dismantle Chomsky is not convincing enough to undermine the apparently very genuine points he presents, even if it does raise questions of his motivations.

Is Chomsky a reliable enough writer (on US political / foreign politics history) for an amateur? If not, why so? I understand that he is not an academic historian, so he might not stand up to standards held by historians, but is he reliable enough for a layperson who recognizes that he might present things in a biased manner (as might anyone else)?

This has been thoroughly answered, thank you mods :)

The hunt for the Bismarck is such an epic tale, a story of cat and mouse between the British and Germans. There seems to have been a genuine fear on the part of the British regarding the ship, culminating with Churchill issuing the urgent order "Sink the Bismarck!". Yet it doesn't seem as if the Yamato, an intimidating ship in it's own right, was a priority to the US Navy.

Why didn't it inspire the same sort of fear in the American's, and why wasn't there an urgent chase to sink it like there was for the Bismarck?

I often see people complaining about the historical accuracy of this show or this show but what I have recently started wondering about after playing D&D, where you can happily pay 400 gold pieces for a decent warhorse, although not historically accurate with the Dragons n'all, is the cost of a horse way back when. Like to feed it, shelter it, train it, get all the equipment for it etc can't have been cheap but in media it makes horse ownership look like car ownership today, sure some people have better ones but nearly everyone has one. Also, thinking about it, horse riding is a skill and not everyone would be able to do it for time or money reasons.

Anyway, my question is: How common was horse ownership in Britain during the Saxon and Viking ages?

Why did it take so long for civilized people to mechanically industrialize. I mean the great ancient civilizations had copper, gold and iron, and most had a class of scholars and inventors. Why did it take so long for humans to harness electricity and start building machines? What kept mankind from making earlier breakthroughs?

In most nations a ruler would practice the religion of the populice of the nation they ruled however in India there was alot of muslim led hindu nations in india. How did this trend towards muslim rulers start and why did it continue?

In the Norse mythology, Thor is depicted wielding his faithful magic hammer, Mjolnir. However, as far as I know, Viking armaments typically consisted of spears, saex, axes, and swords for the more wealthy. Was using a hammer as a weapon based on some Old Germanic customs, or was it just a literary device in the sagas?

Take Tesla for example, Croatia didn't exist when he was born, should we consider him Croatian?, why or why not?.

Was Garibaldi Italian?, was Oda Nobunaga Japanese?, was Bismark German?, none of them were born in those countries because, well, they helped to create them, but are they that nationality in any meaningful sense?

And then you have cases like Persia-Iran, the case of India, the case of China!, nations that have "existed" and stopped to exist at several points in history...

in the face of such a mess of cultures, nations, politics, and more, how can we associate any historical figure with any nationality?

And just to clarify: mods, I'm not asking for examples, I am asking about the criteria historians can use for determining such cases, but I'm not interested in any case in particular

As I understand, the Ryukyuans are considered to be ethnically separate from the Japanese. And, of course, the Ainu are a separate indigenous group, although many have assimilated into Japanese culture. Given that the modern notion of a "Japanese" nationality or ethnic group does not encompass everyone native to the islands, it's reasonable to assume that the notions of being ethnically Japanese and being part of a Japanese nation were at some point constructed. So I'm curious how and when the contemporary ideas of Japanese nationality and ethnicity developed, and whether there were some previously existing notions that people used as groupings before these were constructed.

The Middle East and North Africa were conquered by the Muslims and quickly converted to Islam. While there are significant Muslim populations in former Ottoman territories in Europe, Christianity is still more common. Why did they kept their religion after the conquest while Egypt, Syria and Iran didn't?

And the western front in general. It seems in movies and video games, the USA forces seem to get particular attention. But what about the contribution of US allies?

I never post so I’m sorry if this is the wrong place/etc

Depraved scalawag or unjustly convicted sailor? Perhaps somewhere in the middle?